Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Prime Minister absolutely stunned this House and the country this afternoon by defending Rodney Hide’s cover-up of the theft of a dead child’s identity as being ethical. Then he stunned the country again by condemning his predecessor’s action in signing the back of a painting that was a donation for a fund-raising effort at a kindergarten. The actions of Mr Garrett, Mr Hide, and Mr Key in the cover-up of the theft of that dead child’s identity caused immense distress to the mother and to the siblings of that child. The actions of Helen Clark were an altruistic step towards helping children, but Mr Key was prepared to condemn Helen Clark’s action, which caused no harm—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but could you do something about Melissa Lee and other members screaming as they left the Chamber. They were not even interjecting from their seats, but screaming like banshees, as they left. I do not think that is appropriate.
Mr SPEAKERThe member should not say that members were screaming like banshees. But if any member is interjecting while leaving the Chamber and it comes to my notice, I will be hauling them back very promptly. I apologise to the member that I missed that. I say to members still in the House that the level of noise is just unreasonable. There is nothing wrong with some interjections, but when the level of noise gets as high as that it is just impossible to hear the speaker. The general debate is held so that we can hear what members have to say about issues of public importance.
There will be no sympathy amongst ordinary Kiwis for a Prime Minister prepared to defend the cover-up of an appalling crime, but then ready to condemn his predecessor, a decent person who committed no crime, did no harm, and acted with good intent. That is double standards, and it brings no credit on this Prime Minister.
Mr Key must be the only person in this country still prepared to defend the actions of Rodney Hide in the cover-up of that passport fraud and the stealing of a dead baby’s identity. One thing that New Zealanders hate, more than anything else, is hypocrisy. That is what we saw in the ACT Party’s actions—the party that was against name suppression but was prepared to have it apply to the criminal offending of its own law and order spokesperson, the party that opposed clean-slating minor convictions but wanted to clean-slate the actions of its law and order spokesperson without any formal judicial process, and the party that apparently defended the rights of victims but effectively was happy to see the gagging of the family of that child, who had to watch the hypocrisy of people who said one thing but did something totally different.
This ACT Party is the party that brooked no excuses for the criminal actions of offenders in this country, but were more than happy to find plenty of excuses for Mr Garrett. What this issue is about is that Mr Hide knew about those actions, and he knew about the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. But he was happy for that to happen, provided the public did not know about it.
I say that under the Cabinet Manual Mr Key has an obligation to hold his Ministers to account if they do not show the highest ethical standards. Mr Hide’s actions were anything but ethical. Not only has Mr Key not held Mr Hide to account but also he has protected him. He has kept him on as a Minister notwithstanding the double standards on perks, notwithstanding the allegations by a former Minister about Mr Hide being a menacing bully, and notwithstanding the despicable cover-up of Mr Garrett’s actions.
Mr Key demeans his position as Prime Minister. He has put politics ahead of the public interest. He keeps Mr Hide on, despite breaches by Mr Hide of ethical standards, for one reason and one reason alone. He wants the five votes of the ACT members. He tries to make MMP the issue, but the issue is a lack of ethical standards by Mr Hide and a lack of leadership by Mr Key. Mr Key should have stripped ACT of its ministerial positions. National is tarnished by a party that the public sees as scandal-ridden and unworthy. It is time that Mr Key stopped his defence of that unacceptable behaviour.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
Tēnā koe, e te Mana Kōrero; tēnā koe e te Whare miere. Tuatahi, he mihi aroha, he mihi mamae ki a Jim Nicholls rāua ko Sir Archie Taiaroa. Moe mai kōrua i te Atua.
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and the House. But firstly, a loving and painful greeting to Jim Nicholls and Sir Archie Taiaroa. Rest there in the presence of God, you two.]
It seems appropriate today as we mourn the loss of these two great men, and in particular the loss of Sir Archie Taiaroa, to acknowledge the distinctive legacy of Sir Archie Taiaroa in some of the fundamental issues impacting on tangata whenua. At midday the Land and Water Forum presented its report. It demonstrated that water is regarded as a taonga of paramount importance. Throughout the report we are acutely aware of the obligation of iwi to be responsible for the well-being of the landscape, including our water and waterways. We think of the pivotal role that Sir Archie has played in the Whanganui River claim, upholding the mana of Te Awa Tupua as an essential expression of the people.
Sir Archie was a leading figure in Māoridom, a statesman in this nation, and an influential ambassador for tangata whenua both at home and across the world. We honour him today and we pay tribute to the guidance and leadership he gave to this Parliament and this Government, particularly through the relationship with the Iwi Leadership Group. It is absolutely right that we pay homage to him as we turn to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
I place on record the utter appreciation and admiration of the Māori Party for the leadership expressed by the whānau, hapū, and iwi in the development process leading up to this bill. On the front page of the bill there is a statement: “The Bill recognises the mana tuku iho of iwi and hapū, as tangata whenua, over the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand,”. It states further that the bill “contributes to the continuing exercise of that mana by giving legal recognition, protection, and expression to the customary interests of Māori in the area.” These are critical words, and they represent the advice and the strategic wisdom of our finest iwi leadership.
The Māori Party went into the process of seeking the repeal of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act with a clear intent in mind, and that was to ensure that the door was open to enable hapū and iwi to be at the table with the Crown. Our focus was first and foremost to legally restore the rights that the 2004 Act extinguished, as if the Act had never been passed. We did that, but in the process we have been able to achieve so much more than we ever anticipated. We see the critical role that tikanga plays in any application that can be made before the court. Clause 97 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will allow the High Court to refer questions of tikanga to the Māori Appellate Court, or to obtain the opinion of a court expert on the question. This is a distinctively indigenous solution. Another significant feature of the bill is the introduction of the shared burden of proof. The Court of Appeal in the Ngāti Apa case challenged Parliament to recognise that the onus of proving extinguishment lies on the Crown, and the purpose must be clear and plain. In this bill, specifically clause 105, the Crown’s responsibility is made explicit—another distinguishing feature of the bill.
I want to make some remarks about the role of the Māori Party in getting this bill up. We are quite clear that the Māori Party does not own the takutai moana. It is not for us to settle this issue. The ultimate goal of Māori is to have mana and tikanga in the takutai moana duly recognised in the law. Putting it another way, recognition of customary rights is a matter between the Treaty partners—that is, tangata whenua and the Crown. This bill creates a pathway for negotiations. It does not resolve the issue of customary rights, but it opens the door that was slammed shut in 2004.
Throughout this process we have been privileged to learn from the leadership of iwi for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It was iwi leadership that advocated for non-nationalised minerals to be removed from Crown ownership, and it was our whānau, hapū, and iwi that insisted that mana be recognised as enduring, inalienable, and including the right to development.
The bill achieves two key things. It repeals Crown ownership of takutai moana and it gives iwi the right to make claims for custom to court. It simply restores the rights of tangata whenua to argue their case. That is the challenge before us now: to ensure that the Māori Affairs Committee is the place in which all the kōrero is had and where the negotiating points are debated. We urge all New Zealanders to contribute to this debate, and in doing so to truly give value to the intrinsic value of the marine and coastal area for every person in this land.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
At the end of next week we will see the implementation of one of the more significant tax reform packages in New Zealand for quite some time. It is an important measure in assisting the rebalancing of the New Zealand economy. The changes on 1 October will reward effort. They will reward work, savings, and investment, and they will help Kiwi families get ahead. Just as importantly, the package as a whole will help to deal with the consequences of the appalling mismanagement of this economy through the term of the previous Labour Government. This tax package will openly favour savings, investment, and exports. It is designed to increase the disincentives to consume too much, to borrow too much, particularly for property speculation, and to exacerbate the imbalances that built up in this economy over the first decade of this century.
I think a number of New Zealanders will be very familiar with the idea that GST will rise from 12.5 to 15 percent—not from 0 percent to 15 percent, as the Labour Party is putting in its pamphlets. When it comes to misleading numbers and implications, there is not much that could be more misleading than that. But New Zealanders are probably not quite expecting the reduction in income taxes, and it will take a couple of pay—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it in goodwill. I was certainly not calling Mr English a fool; I was calling Mr Quinn a fool.
Members should not do that to interrupt us. We will not have this ongoing interjection. Members should not interrupt speeches for trivial reasons, so I apologise to the Hon Bill English.
That intervention just shows why the member for Waimakariri is doing so well in the Labour Party. That is his most insightful and thoughtful contribution in this term of office. He is lost without Mike Moore, as he has been for about 15 years.
I am sure people will believe the income tax cuts when they actually see them, but here is just one figure: after 1 October, 72 percent of New Zealand earners will have a top statutory tax rate of 17.5c. The lower 72 percent of New Zealand earners, the lowest earners, will have a top statutory tax rate of 17.5c because we believe that incentives matter across the board. One of the features of this package is that when we take account of the range of tax increases that are occurring—because this is a roughly neutral package; tax cuts are offset by other tax increases—we see that the impact of those tax changes is broadly even across the income groups. The Government took the unprecedented step in the Budget of producing a number of measures on the equity impact of the tax cuts.
Hon Steve ChadwickIt does not do that. New Zealanders can, like the Opposition, go to www.taxguide.govt.nz, put in the figures that reflect their own circumstances, and calculate just how well they come out ahead from the tax changes—or otherwise.
There has been a bit of discussion about inflation. As I pointed out in question time, the Reserve Bank forecast for inflation actually showed that the forecast for inflation is now lower than it was a number of months ago.
Hon David CunliffeThe Opposition cannot have it both ways. Those members either have to argue there is high inflation in a growing economy, or, if the economy is failing, they have to accept that there will be lower inflation because of a slower-growing economy.
The fact is that even with the GST rise, the one-off inflation rate will get to a bit over 5 percent. That is about the same rate as it was when Labour left office, with no GST increase and no one-off price increase. Of course, New Zealanders are wearing the consequences of a number of Labour’s decisions. For instance, the increase in accident compensation levies is directly attributable to the reckless, incompetent management of the taxpayers’ single largest asset. It is taking us 2 or 3 years to clean up that mess.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
There is a Māori proverb that says “To utter the name is to invoke the presence” or, to put it another way, “To steal the name is to steal something precious from a family”. My heart goes out to the family who suffered the crime of identity theft—members opposite may not like it, of course; they treat it with disrespect—perpetrated by a representative in this House, covered up by a Minister of the Crown, and protected by the highest office holder holding a seat in this Chamber as of today, the Prime Minister. The perpetrator was protected by him.
As the Prime Minister wrapped his arms around Mr Rodney Philip Hide, did anybody believe Mr Hide’s story that he did not know the detail of Mr Garrett’s crime—that he did not know the detail that Mr Garrett stole a dead baby’s identity, and that he did not know there was a permanent suppression order? The argument that he did not know is false, and the falsehood lies in the fact that Mr Hide covered it up. The only reason Mr Hide covered it up is that there was a permanent suppression order in place. If there had not been a permanent suppression order in place, Mr Hide would have said to Mr Garrett that he would not be a member of Parliament in ACT—well, he might have.
Paul QuinnHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
But I suspect that Garth McVicar stands charged as a hypocrite today because, to use Mr Quinn’s term, he aided and abetted a man to get off a conviction with a reference. He aided and abetted a man to get permanent name suppression. As Phil Goff said, I wonder whether Garth McVicar and David Garrett were complicit in all this with Rodney Hide—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a bit confused. I understand the speaker is accusing me of aiding and abetting—
The member knows that that is not a point of order. If the member is concerned about something the member in debate is speaking about, he can take the next call. National has further calls. I apologise to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
They were aided and abetted by Rodney Hide. Did any of those gentlemen—hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil; Hide, Garrett, and McVicar—ever consider that in putting in place, assisting, and standing up for permanent name suppression, which they all railed against in public, they had gagged a 93-year-old woman and her family from ever speaking out on this crime? Did they consider that they had tortured that family day after day, year after year, as that 93-year-old woman had to watch Mr Hide, Mr McVicar, and Mr Garrett gallop around the country calling for zero tolerance? They railed against suppression orders.
What Mr McVicar said is very interesting, because he stands charged with utter hypocrisy. He said, on 13 January 2007: “We are here for the victims, a voice for them,”. I ask Mr McVicar whether he has rung up the 93-year-old woman and asked her to join the “sensible sentencing club”—which, to quote him, no one wants to be a member of—given that she is a victim at his hands and his best mate’s hands of a crime that was covered up by Mr Hide and protected by the Prime Minister.
Mr McVicar said the public was sick of watching as well-known defendants appear to use their position to get lighter sentences. He also said, on 15 December 2007: “If a role model goes off the tracks, the court should be sending a deterrent message.” I wonder what Mr McVicar says today, and what the Sensible Sentencing Trust thinks of him. He never revealed the fact that he gave a character reference to get Mr Garrett off a conviction, and that he provided an excuse and character reference for permanent name suppression. I wonder what he says to the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
He sent me an email on the night the “three strikes” legislation was passed, reminding me that he stands up for victims. Well, he stands accused of hypocrisy, and I invite him to go and meet those victims. I invite him to reconvene the victims’ conference he had in this Parliament, and explain himself to those who were there, because he is still wrapping his arms around Mr Garrett.
I look at Mr Hide’s statements and I see a man whose truthfulness and factual statements are all over the place. On 15 September he told OneNews that obtaining the fake ID was a prank. Later, on Close Up, he was asked whether he had said it was a prank, and he said that, no, it was horrific. On 15 September Rodney Philip Hide told Close Up that he had known the circumstances of this case before Mr Garrett became a candidate. He reiterated that in the New Zealand Herald on 15 September. But on 17 September he said to Mr Garner that he could not remember whether Garrett had told him he had stolen a dead infant’s identity: “I don’t know what level of detail I knew.”
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
Before I start, I join with a number of other people in passing on my sincere condolences on the death of Sir Archie Taiaroa. I worked with Archie a lot in the early 1990s on Māori broadcasting and the establishment of Māori radio, and as recently as last year I worked with him on the issue of the “h” in the spelling of Wanganui. He was a man amongst men; he was a legend. He was spectacular, and I will always feel richer in this life for having known him and worked with him.
On 1 October this year a great event will occur. It is an event that is in line with what I have wanted as a politician for the entire time that I have been in this House. It is a move away from taxing incomes and a move towards taxing spending. This is a spectacularly good move, which the Minister of Finance, Bill English, brought in in the Budget this year. It comes into effect on 1 October, and it will be one of the most important things to stimulate our economy. It is a tax shift away from taxing earnings, because earnings are a good thing, and towards taxing spending, especially consumption-type spending, because spending is a bad thing, in my view. If people choose to go out and buy plasma screens and splash out on all sorts of consumer luxuries, that is fine, but that is where people should be paying tax, and I absolutely congratulate Bill English on this rebalancing.
This change does a number of things that are just fantastic, which Mr English referred to in his speech. The first one is that nearly three-quarters of all taxpayers will pay a maximum tax rate of 17.5c in the dollar. That is outstanding. I remember times in this country’s history when the marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar; people kept a third of what they earned and the Government took two-thirds. Now Mr English has rebalanced the taxation system and got it to a point where most taxpayers—three-quarters of them—will pay a maximum of 17.5c in the dollar.
Yes, there is an increase in GST. I find it interesting that Labour is so opposed to that, because I remember a couple of things. First of all, GST came in at 10 percent. I was around in those days, in the mid-1980s, and I am sure a lot of members of this House were in politics then. Do members know what happened? There was not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a whisper of GST until Labour got into power. Was it in Labour’s manifesto? No. Was it mentioned on the hustings? No. Was it canvassed with anybody at all? No. Suddenly Labour got into Government, and it did not increase GST by 2.5 percentage points, as this measure does, but it slammed it in as a brand new tax at 10 percent, saying “Here, take that”. There was no consultation; it was a done deal.
One might think I was criticising Labour for that, but I am not. I think introducing GST at a rate of 10 percent was a very good first step, and I congratulate Labour on doing it. But not long after that, again with no compensation and with no discussion, Labour put the GST rate up from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. That is a 25 percent increase—2.5 percent on 10 percent is a 25 percent increase. We have not done even nearly that, because our 2.5 percent increase is on the 12.5 percent. Yet Labour did that with no compensation to income earners, no compensation to superannuitants, and no compensation to people on lower incomes. And guess what! That was all OK. It was perfectly acceptable for Labour to do that.
Now Bill English has come out with a complete rebalancing package, where people will get a lot more of their income in their hands to keep. Let me give members a couple of examples. The average wage earner will be about $15 a week better off, even after paying the increased GST. Did that happen when Labour did its increase? No, it did not. The average family—so this is not the average income earner; we are going to the family level—in New Zealand, based on their circumstances and spending, will be $25 a week better off under this package than at present. Here is the question: who would reverse that? I guess the question is whether the Labour members will get up in the House today and say that if they back get into Government, which I do not think will be for a very long time, GST will go back down to 12.5 percent. Not on your nelly! Labour thinks this is a great idea, and it is just posturing on this issue.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I begin my contribution to the general debate this afternoon by acknowledging with considerable sadness the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa, and I extend my sincere condolences to his family, his friends, his colleagues, and his admirers throughout the country. He is one of the few people of whom we can say that he truly has left our country in a better state for his being a citizen of it. I want to pay the highest possible tribute to him. I know that many colleagues will be paying their respects in person to his family. I will not have that opportunity, but it is a rare privilege to be able to do that in this House.
The last few days have been quite extraordinary in terms of this Parliament. I think that the Prime Minister, John Key, is the last remaining New Zealander who is prepared to stand up for Rodney Hide, for the ACT Party, and for David Garrett. Rodney Hide came into this House a lot larger and a lot louder than he is now, saying that he was going to stop the perk-busting of politicians. He was not a politician. He was elected as a new breed of people in this Parliament, and he was going to stamp out perk-busting. Not long after that, he was exposed, not just as a person not able to stop perk-busting but as a perk-taker himself. As long as it was done under the radar and as long as people did not know about it, he said that was all right. I recall John Key saying nothing about that at that time. He did not stand up for him, but certainly did not give him any penalty or punishment.
David Garrett came into this House with even stronger principles, if one looked at it from the outside without any knowledge. He has now broken every single principle that he has ever campaigned on, and he did not campaign quietly. He railed against people having name suppression—absolutely railed against it. Yet he had his own name suppressed. There is a word for that. He is being charged of hypocrisy by people up and down this country. That is the charge that is in front of David Garrett at the moment. He campaigned for openness and transparency, and at the very same time he was denying the truth about his own life to the public of New Zealand. He rallied against criminals and their excuses. He said that there is no excuse for any bad behaviour, but suddenly he has found a huge number of excuses for his own behaviour, his own deceit, and his own hypocrisy.
Rodney Hide, the leader of the ACT Party, knew about David Garrett’s actions before he came into this Parliament. But he did not worry about it, because he never knew that those actions would become public. At the very same time, and this is the worst aspect of this disgraceful behaviour, the family of the dead baby whose identity was stolen by David Garrett had to watch him deceive the country about openness and transparency, about never giving criminals any excuses, and about his “three strikes and you’re out” position. They were not able to ever raise the disgust that they felt, knowing that he had stolen the identity of their dead baby and was now parading up and down the country with exactly the opposite view, because Mr Garrett had been given name suppression—something that he opposed for other people. So for that family this Parliament should hang its head in shame. Rodney Hide should personally visit them and apologise for his support of David Garrett when he knew the facts of the situation. This behaviour cannot be passed off as a youthful prank. It was a considered theft of a dead baby’s identity. I do not think that very many other actions can be held in such low regard. I do not understand why John Key is backing Rodney Hide. He is the last-standing New Zealander to defend him.
HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this
Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā; huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko te kupu tuatahi, he poroporoaki tēnei ki a Tā Archie Taiaroa, ki a Jim Nicholls hoki. Ki a rāua tahi, haere, haere, oki atu rā. Hoki mai ki a tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker; and to us throughout our House, greetings to us all. The first statement is this farewell tribute to Sir Archie Taiaroa, and to Jim Nicholls as well. To both of them, I say, depart, farewell, rest there. I come back to us, so greetings to us all.]
I just wanted to pay my short respects regarding the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa and Jim Nicholls, both of whom are being mourned across the nation today.
In turning to this general debate this afternoon, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join with this team on the Government benches to talk about the great story we have to tell in terms of our economic plan. This morning in the Mana electorate I attended two events that, in parenthesis, tell the kind of story that this Government is interested in supporting and growing. The first was about how we deal with young people whose lives are going off-track and how we help them to rehabilitate and restore themselves to the opportunity of being positive participants in society. This meeting took place between Waitangirua and Cannons Creek in the Mana electorate. Then, just down the road, I attended the graduation of the Computers in Homes programme, where 57 individuals and their families had completed a 9-week course. As a result of that, they have the opportunity to get a job or improve the job they have. This Government is interested in providing incentives and support for people to get into work.
Earlier this week I also attended a very vibrant and dynamic meeting of women in business in the northern end of the Mana electorate. These women have started their own businesses or are growing their businesses. They remain confident about, and feel very buoyed by, the strong structural platform that this Government has put in place and the kind of direction we are going in.
Tomorrow, the Venus Club, another club for women in business, will be launching in Porirua, which is in the central part of the Mana electorate. Again, we have actual, practical examples on the ground of people who have become more and more confident about the economic plan that this Government has put in place.
I want to tell a fuller story about the area from Porirua to Paraparaumu, which are the two boundary ends of the Mana electorate. We so often are condemned to hearing the most negative exceptions about those areas, and I want to try to put the narrative in place that tells us a fuller story. Yes, there are some dire situations that individuals and families are experiencing in terms of their housing and health conditions. Those situations are directly related to the shameful deferral of maintenance that that Opposition, the Labour Party, oversaw during its 9 years in Government. When we had the best of economic conditions, it failed those people as the State landlord. The Mana electorate is reaping the consequences of those irresponsible and shameful behaviours. This Government is determined to turn that round, not only in that area directly but also in terms of how we can assist families in the Mana electorate through the tax cuts that are coming into being on 1 October.
I can tell this House that in 2009, the worst of economic times in this country, the Porirua City economy outperformed the Wellington region and New Zealand. [Interruption] If the yabbering members opposite are interested in facts rather than their versions of stories, they might take the time to listen. Porirua City is very proud of the achievements it has made economically. It is very proud that the real value-added GDP growth in Porirua was 2.1 percent, while in the Wellington region it was 0.1 percent.
Hon Lianne DalzielI will not be shouted down by members who are naysayers and who want to cast the most negative version across Porirua and the wider Mana electorate. Employment growth there has been 3.7 percent, while in the Wellington region it has been 1.9 percent. There has not been very much growth in the small-business units, but more staff have been taken on. The introduction of tax cuts on 1 October will benefit a wide range of families in the Mana electorate.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I do not know which electorate the previous speaker, Hekia Parata, has been campaigning in, but that is certainly not the message that we have been getting on the streets in Mana at all. I would like to start by joining my parliamentary colleagues in recording the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa. He was truly a great leader. Many people have been shocked since his sudden illness on the weekend, and his death is truly a loss for our country. I would also like to put on the record my commiserations to his whānau on the loss of a truly great New Zealand leader.
I think many New Zealanders today, after question time, will be asking themselves what it will take for Prime Minister John Key to lose confidence in his Minister Rodney Hide.
What more could Mr Hide possibly do to lose the confidence of the Prime Minister? Today the Prime Minister said in question time that he believed that Mr Hide was acting ethically. Mr Hide covered up a heinous crime, committed by one of his own MPs, and gave that member the law and order portfolio. It is a true slap in the face to the victims of Mr Garrett’s crime and it has caused great pain to the victims of that crime.
How can the Prime Minister stand in this House and say that behaviour is ethical? How can he defend that behaviour?
Apparently Mr Quinn thinks that signing a painting for charity is the same thing as stealing a dead baby’s identity. Well, I tell the member that is it not.
I tell Mr Quinn that Taito Phillip Field is in prison. If Mr Quinn and Prime Minister John Key think it is OK to have a Minister in their Government who covered up the identity theft of a dead baby, then this is a sad day for the Parliament of New Zealand. This Prime Minister promised higher standards would be set by Ministers. He said his executive would be different from previous ones, but what has happened has been nothing short of a disgrace. Mr Hide should be relieved of his ministerial portfolios.
This is not an isolated incident. We can look back at a pattern of behaviour from Minister Rodney Hide, and this behaviour has been raised in the House many times. He went on TV and encouraged people to break the law, but that was OK with Mr Key. He charged people $45 to come and hear him speak in his capacity as the Minister of Local Government, but it was OK with Mr Key for a Minister to charge the people of New Zealand, who pay the Minister’s salary, to hear him speak. Mr Key thought that was all right. Mr Hide then went to a function and bad-mouthed Mr Key, saying he does not do anything and has no principles. That was also all right with Mr Key; he forgave that. The great perk-buster, Mr Rodney Hide, then took his partner on a taxpayer-funded trip round the world, for which he then had to pay money back, but that was all right with Mr Key. Mr Hide breached Cabinet Manual rules by endorsing a company when he was a Minister, but that was all right with Mr Key. Mr Hide was all right when David Garrett was accused of sexually harassing a female staff member.
There may be more of that; I do not know whether that is the case. But apparently that was also all right with Mr Key. That behaviour was considered to be appropriate and ethical for a Minister.
When Mr Garrett made some particularly repugnant comments on sterilisation, Mr Key thought it was all right that Mr Hide defended Mr Garrett in that case. There was the appalling treatment of Heather Roy, the bullying of one of Mr Hide’s own colleagues. That was all right with Mr Key. He thought that Mr Hide did a good job of handling that, as well. There was the way that Mr Hide has handled the Auckland super-city legislation. It was anti-democratic not to give Aucklanders the right to decide on how their local government would be run. Apparently, that was all right with Mr Key.
But the worst thing of all is that Mr Key is defending a Minister who has covered up the identity theft of a dead child. Well, the Labour Party says Mr Key is now the only person who is defending Mr Hide. Mr Key is the only person who thinks that Mr Hide deserves to keep his Cabinet position.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
It is my pleasure to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. We are seeing probably the biggest tax reforms this country has had in the last two decades. This Government is sending out a clear message with these reforms, and that clear message is quite simple: we will reward hard work. We will reward the people who go out there and work hard, by reducing their personal tax rates. We will reward people if they go out and invest and if they go out and save, because we want New Zealanders to think about what they are doing with their money and about how well they can do with it.
New Zealand is renowned for being a country of spenders. We are very good at spending everything we have and we are very good at borrowing to spend money we do not have, as well. Part of the reason why we are in a recession in New Zealand now is that people have borrowed to spend money on consumables. They have borrowed against their mortgages to spend money on increasing their personal assets, like a car. Instead of saving to do that, they have borrowed on their mortgage or they have run up credit on their credit cards. So this Government is sending some clear messages out there: let us work hard, let us invest, let us save, and let us get ahead. If the reason that people are borrowing for investment properties is to get ahead through tax advantages, then they will not be able to do that any more. If people want to go out and spend every single cent that they earn on consumables, then they will be paying a portion of that spending on GST. We have made a whole range of reductions in personal tax and we have increased GST to 15 percent. We have not made GST 15 percent; we have increased it by 2.5 percent to 15 percent. In effect, we have given a $4 billion tax cut to New Zealand, and we have taken some money back by increasing GST to the value of $2 billion. New Zealanders, overall, will be $2 billion better off.
Last night I went to a Wellington kindy association AGM held in Johnsonville, in Ōhariu. When one looked around at the parents, the mums and dads, at that AGM, one could see that they work hard. They want to get ahead and they want these tax cuts. Those parents do not measure their success by measuring how well this Government does with regard to GDP; they measure their success by their real wages, by their real salaries, by how much they take home at the end of the day, by how much they have to play with, by how much they can spend on groceries and clothing, and by how much they can spend on taking their kids on a holiday. That is how they measure their success right here, right now. This Government is delivering a tax cut to those families on 1 October.
It is interesting that we talk about what families in New Zealand want. They just want to be left alone to get on, to get ahead in life, and to do their thing, without having the Government coming back and saying that if they reach this much when they are earning, then it will take this benefit away from them for doing that. Those families want to work hard and earn money, take it home, and decide in their own home how they will spend that money. That is not too complex.
In fact, we see that these tax cuts are quite significant when we look at a couple of the income brackets. I will talk members through those, because people talk about this in concept but not many people actually get the changes. If people earn up to $14,000 a year, their tax rate changes from 12.5 percent to 10.5 percent. If people earn between $14,000 and $48,000 a year, their tax rate moves from 21 percent to 17.5 percent. That is quite a big drop. If people earn between $48,000 and $70,000—we are talking now about people like teachers, police officers, and nurses—their income tax rate drops from 33c to 30c in the dollar. If people are lucky enough to earn over $70,000, their income tax rate drops from 38c to 33c in the dollar. What does that mean in terms of what people take home at the end of the day? If we include the increase in GST, the average wage earner in New Zealand who earns about $50,000 will be about $15 a week better off. The average family in New Zealand will be $25 a week better off. A retired couple receiving only New Zealand superannuation will be $11 a week better off.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
I join with my colleagues in expressing my sympathy over the passing of two great leaders of the Māori community. I am sure that all members in the House will join with us in that. Sir Archie Taiaroa was a great New Zealander.
I will talk today about what is happening in Auckland. Next week many local government workers will find out whether they have their jobs. Many will not have their jobs. Of course, the Public Service Association (PSA) has worked for these people and they have redundancy packages. I think that is good—ordinary workers with decent redundancy packages. But there comes a time when things will be hard for all New Zealanders.
What is surprising is the amount of rumour going around about some of the eight chief executives and what will happen to them. People are saying that they are getting a golden handshake. Some of them will get a six-figure sum. Some of them will get a substantial six-figure sum. These people are at the moment on six-figure contracts. They are being paid that amount of money, yet they will get an additional payment. These people are on fixed-term contracts. I challenge Rodney Hide to tell the people of Auckland what is going on. When one is earning more a year than the Prime Minister, I ask whether one should be getting a huge payout.
People will find out next week what has happened to their jobs, and they will get a redundancy package that has been negotiated. The PSA has done a good job, but people will see that some of those chief executives are doing all right. They are already paid large sums, which means that they are required to do the extra yard—go out and do the overtime, work on weekends—but now they will get extra rewards.
I say to the local government Ministers that people in Auckland need to know what is going on. I know that John Carter is busy working as the Minister of Civil Defence, and I do not want to distract him from that. But the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, must know all about this matter. I ask who will pay these six-figure sums. Well, elderly people who own their own homes will have to go into their purses to get some money to pay for these huge redundancy handouts, golden parachutes—call them what we will. Those people want answers.
How accurate are the rumours? The challenge for Mr Hide is to tell people exactly what is going on. He should not keep it secret. Mr Hide has a background of keeping things secret, but the people of Auckland, of course, want answers. People are looking around and seeing how unfair the system is. Chief executives might get close to half a million dollars when they clear their desks, close the door, and walk out of their offices, and they will be quite happy. Council workers, who do the ordinary jobs that are so important, will look at what the PSA has for them. They think that is fine. But when they start to do the comparison, they will wonder. They can say to themselves that they worked hard. Many of them went the extra yard. But in the end those people need answers.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
From 1 October New Zealand will introduce the biggest tax reform package that this country has seen in a generation. This tax cut package is the commitment that the National Party made to the electorate when it went to the polls at the last election, and the National Government is delivering upon it. The tax cut package puts a whopping $4 billion into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis. Yes, GST will rise, providing $2 billion, but the net benefit to Kiwis will be positive. It is projected that the average family on $70,000 will be $25 per week better off after accounting for the GST increase. This has to be good for New Zealand.
From 1 October Kiwis will see significant increases in their wage packets, and will have the choice to spend that money or to save it. Importantly, real after-tax wages are forecast to rise by 1.2 percent in the last 3 months of this year. This is an excellent result. I am confident that we will look back on this initiative in many years’ time and say that this was a pivotal point for the future of New Zealand’s prosperity.
There is an inconvenient truth for the Labour Party in this package. Many high-income property investors will now face higher taxes, as depreciation is removed from commercial and residential property. The Labour Party wants to paint this package as tax cuts just for the rich. How far from the truth can that be? In fact, many property investors will now be paying higher taxes. Previously, property owners have been able to claim losses through the non-cash accrual of depreciation, but they will now face paying tax on their property investments. Given that most investment properties generally rise in value, not fall, this is a sensible move. This is part of the rebalancing of the economy, and it will help to change investment decisions from non-productive investment in residential property, towards productive investment in the production engine of the economy. That rebalancing needs to take place, and this Government is delivering upon it.
We throw lots of different statistics around this House, in a game of ultimate one-upmanship. We are all guilty of this, as we attempt to manoeuvre our political chess pieces in an effort either to regain or to retain the Treasury benches. Of all the statistics that have been thrown around this House since I have been an MP for some 5 years, it is the ability of a Government to lift the wages of its constituents above the rate of inflation that I believe is most important. Real wage growth is the genuine measure that indicates whether a Government has been able to improve the lot of its citizens. This should be the focus of any Government, and particularly for those parties that claim to represent low-income earners.
The previous Labour Government achieved real wage growth over the 9-year period it was in office, but it achieved real wage growth of just 3 percent. That is an annual real wage growth over that 9-year period of 0.3 percent per annum. It is absolutely appalling. It is unbelievable. The interesting point is that most of that wage growth was achieved in the first 4 years of that regime. Throughout the period when we had some of the highest-ever surpluses in the economy of this country, of $6 billion and $8 billion, the previous Labour Government achieved virtually zero real wage growth for cleaners, for factory workers, for the people whom it claimed to represent. That is an indictment of the worst kind.
There were three failings at the nub of this result: firstly, a failure to control inflation, and we heard today that towards the end of the term of the previous Labour Government, inflation was over 5 percent; secondly, the fact that many Kiwis were continually being pushed into higher and higher marginal tax brackets; and, thirdly, a philosophical opposition to allowing taxpayers to keep more money in their back pockets. Even when Michael Cullen was forced into adjusting the level of marginal tax rates, he reneged. He reversed them.
It was not until the death knell of the previous Labour Government that Labour finally accepted that the workers of this country deserved to be rewarded. That last-minute decision was far too late to impact upon its record of real wage growth of just 3 percent. Let me say that again—Labour achieved 3 percent real wage growth over 9 years. What sort of record is that for the cleaners and the production factory workers of this country? It is abysmal. Thank you.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
On behalf of the Green Party, I pay my respects to Sir Archie Taiaroa. I acknowledge what a great leader he was and I convey our condolences to his whānau. Today is a members’ day, and my member’s bill, the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill, was to be debated in the House. However, I have delayed its consideration because I want the vote on the bill to be a personal, or conscience, vote. Animal welfare is, above all, an ethical and moral issue. I wrote to the Speaker requesting that MPs be allowed to exercise a personal, or conscience, vote. It was considered by the Business Committee yesterday and supported, as I understand, by the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party. But National argued that animal welfare was an economic issue, not an ethical or moral one, and that MPs should not be allowed to vote with their conscience on this issue.
I have written once again to the Speaker, requesting that he reconsider my request. The simple fact is that animal welfare is an ethical and a moral issue. Some farmers may wish otherwise. They may wish that it was just an economic issue, and that it was left up to them to decide whether they consider it profitable to treat animals humanely. The reason that so many New Zealanders feel passionately about animal welfare, the reason there were protests outside Parliament today about animal welfare, and the reason a petition on animal welfare was presented to Parliament today is that it is an ethical and a moral issue. It revolves around questions such as whether animals have an intrinsic value and should, therefore, be treated with compassion and respect, or whether they are just the property of humans and can be manipulated and treated in whatever way farmers want, as long as it makes them more efficient sources of cheap meat, milk, and eggs for humans.
These ethical and moral issues are particularly important when we consider an animal such as a pig. Pigs are highly sociable, intelligent, and very curious. Professor Stanley Curtis, who spent his career studying pigs, taught them to play computer games using joysticks, which they were able to move with their snouts or by holding them in their mouths. He said that pigs are one of the most intelligent animals on earth, and that they far surpass the mental capacity of dogs. They communicate with each other constantly, and given a choice they will live in families or small groups. They love to root around in the soil and forage for food, and socialise. They have a strong mothering instinct, but when they are cramped together for long periods of time or locked in cages their social skills break down. They become aggressive and frustrated, and engage in infighting. Imagine how these sociable animals feel when they are locked in cages, unable to exercise, search for food, be part of a family, socialise, or build a nest for their young.
This begs the question, a moral and an ethical question, for this Parliament: do we have a right to require highly intelligent animals like pigs to live miserable lives of suffering, just to satisfy our desire for cheap meat, especially when we can farm it perfectly well in humane, free-range conditions where pigs are able to express normal patterns of behaviour? Parliament needs to consider whether it is ethical to treat animals in a way that would be considered torture if it was carried out on humans or even companion animals. Why is it a crime to keep animals such as dogs in a cage for long periods of time, but perfectly acceptable to keep other animals, such as pigs and hens, in cages for prolonged periods? These are ethical and moral issues that this Parliament has to consider and debate when it considers my bill. We cannot have one law for companion animals and a completely different law for farm animals. Animal cruelty, surely, is animal cruelty whether it happens to a pig or a dog. I acknowledge that there are economic issues that we need to consider, but ultimately I want my bill to be a conscience vote.